initial studyaddress hollister, ca 95023 zoning: agriculture ranchlands (ar), ... grazing land and...

INITIAL STUDY Environmental Checklist and Evaluation for Santa Clara County

File Number: 10214-12S-13EA Date: January 10, 2014

Project.Type: Subdivision (2 lots) APN(s): 898-45-002

Project Location I Whiskey Flat Road & HalTison Road, GP Designation: Ranchlands .

Hollister, CA 95023 Address Zoning: Agriculture Ranchlands (AR),

Owner's Name Giovannotto Land and Cattle Agricultme Ranchlands w/ scenic road . (AR-sr)

Applicant's Name: Samuel H. Halsted Urban Service Area: None

Project Description

This application is for a two-lot subdivision of an existing 432.97 acre site. (See attached tentative subdivision map for details). The project will subdivide a parcel that fronts Whiskey Flat Road; Parcel 1 will be 352.97 acres and Parcel 2 will be 80 acres. The property is zoned AR (Agriculture Ranchlands), with 19.7% of it zoned AR-sr (Agricultme Ranchlands scenic road). Harrison Road, which runs through Parcel 2 of the proposed subdivision, will be widened in nairow areas, and paved and improved where necessary as required by Land Development Engineering standards, to provide access to the parcels. Some improvements on the access road have already been constructed which will be permitted as part of the conditions of the subdivision.

Once the property is subdivided, each lot could be developed with a single fainily residence, and secondary dwelling. Futme home development would be served by well and onsite septic systems. However no residential development is proposed at this time.

.

Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses

The parcel to be subdivided is located between Whiskey Flat Road and Pacheco Pass Highway west of Dinosaur Point Road adjacent to the Merced County Line within the rural unincorporated area of Santa Clara County, south and east of the City of Gilroy. The property is culTently unimproved, consisting of rolling hills studded with Mixed Oak and Valley Oak woodland. The property and suITounding adjacent properties consist primarily of grazing land and California Annual Grassland. The California Natmal Diversity Database of CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife show that smveys have found endangered species in the vicinity. California red-legged frog and Western Pond turtle were found present in this area residing near two ponds on the subdivided lot, both of which lie next to the main access roads. Wildlife Survey Reports also show a presence of San Joaquin Kit Fox in the vicinity. This project is a covered project per the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. Future development is also subject to Habitat Plan fees and conditions.

Other agencies sent a copy of this document:

Merced County

1

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

D Aesthetics D Agricnlture I Forest Resources

D Biological Resonrces D Cultural Resources

D Greenhouse Gas Emissions D Hazards & Hazardons Materials

D Land Use D Noise

D Public Services D Resonrces I Recreation

D Utilities I Service Systems D Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

D Air Qnality

D Geology I Soils

D Hydrology I Water Quality

D Popnlation I Housing

D Transportation I Traffic

~None

[2] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the envirornnent, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the envirornnent, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the envirornnent, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARA TJON pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the enviromnent, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

~ ~, O~ jc.vu~ L01.w~u Colleen Oda, Project Planner Date

2

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS

A. AESTHETICS IMPACT

WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO

Lessibao SOURCES Potentiall~ Signifi1:;aoi Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact

Impact Mill9a1i.oo Impact lncorgoratf!d

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic D D D l:8J 2,3,4, 6, 17f vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources along D D D l:8J 3, 6,7 17f a designated scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual D D D l:8J 2,3 character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or D D D l:8J 3,4 glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

e) If subject to ASA, be generally in non- D D D l:8J 11 compliance with the Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval?

I) If within a Design Review Zoning District for D D D l:8J 2,3,4,Ba, 9, 12, purposes of viewshed protection (d, -d1, -d2), 17f conflict with applicable General Plan policies or Zoning Ordinance provisions?

DISCUSSION: The proposed two-lot subdivision is located southeast of City of Gilroy adjacent to the Merced County line but within the Santa Clara County rnral unincorporated area. This site is not located in any Design Review Zoning District. The main access road for the 80 acre lot of the subdivision is Harrison Road, which runs through the lot and connects on to Old Pacheco Pass Road in the north and Whiskey Flat Road, which runs along the southeast border of both lots of the subdivision. Pacheco Pass Highway is a County designated scenic road. Whiskey Flat Road is the primary access road for the 32.97 acre lot. There will be minor road improvement and grading on Harrison Road, of which some improvements have already been constructed. The access road would not be visibly from neighboring properties and the scenic road Pacheco Pass Highway.

The subdivision would allow for future single family residential construction on each parcel. However no residential development is proposed at this time.

IMPACT: NO IMPACT

MITIGATION: None

3

B. AGRICULTURE I FOREST RESOURCES

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO

less Than SOURCE Potentially: Significant Less Than Significant Willl Significant No Impact

Impact Mitigation Impact lncomorated

a) Convert 10 or more acres of farmland D D D ~ 3,23,24,26 classified as prime in the report Soils of Santa Clara County (Class I, II) to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural D D D ~ 9,21a use?

c) Conflict with an existing Williamson Act D D D ~ 1,28 Contract or the County's Williamson Act Ordinance (Section C13 of County Ordinance Code)?

d) Conflict with existing zone for, or cause D D D ~ 9, rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

D D D ~ e) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of 32 forest land to non-forest use?

f) Involve other changes in the existing D D D ~ 3,4,26 environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

DISCUSSION: The project will result iu the creation of two new parcels with no change of land use. The property is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract and is not designated as forest land, timberland, or zoned for timberland production. There is no tree removal proposed or required for this project. There is no prime farmland on site. The property is ranchland, and once subdivided may be developed with a single family residence and secondary dwelling on each parcel. However no residential development is proposed at this time. The project will not result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a net loss of prime agricultural land or any negative agricultural impacts. Overall, the project will not have any significant agricultural impacts.

IMPACT: No Impact

4

MITIGATION: None

c. AIR QUALITY

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.


Less Thao SOURCE Potentially: Significant Less Than Significant Will1 Significant NolmQact

Impact Mitigation Impact lncoq2oraWd

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the D D D ~ 5,29, 30 applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute D D D ~ 5,29, 30 substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net D D D ~ 5,29, 30 increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial D D D ~ 5,29, 30 pollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors or dust affecting a D D ~ D 5,21, 29, 47 substantial number of people?

DISCUSSION: The project will result in the creation of two parcels. With the final map, an access road provided access to both lots will undergo road improvement, widening of narrow areas, and grading. Some of the improvements for the access road have already been constructed.

No residential development is proposed at this time. As such, it is not anticipated that the subdivision itself will generate any new trips.

Future development could consist of one single family residence and secondary dwelling per parcel (352.97 acres and 80 acres), which will not generate substantial new vehicle emissions. No residential development is proposed at this time.

Dust emissions allocated with the road improvements shall be controlled through standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) dust control measures as stipulated by the Bay Area Quality Management District to mitigate any air quality impacts from construction including fugitive

dust from NOx (oxides of nitrogen) and PM! 0 (reparable particulate matter with aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers) emissions. Therefore, there will not be any air quality related impacts.

IMP ACT: Less than Significant

5

MITIGATION: None

D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES


Less Than SOURCES Potentially

Significant Less Than With Significant !';lo Impact _9ignificant Mitigation Impact Impact lncomorated

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either D D l2J u 1, 7, 17b, 170, directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any D D l2J D 3, 7, Ba, 17b, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 17e, 22d, 22e, community identified in local or regional plans, 33 policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally D D D l2J 3, 7, 17n, 33 protected wetlands as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or tributary to an already impaired water body, as defined by section 303( d) of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Have a substantial adverse effect on oak D D D l2J woodland habitat as defined by Oak 1,3,31,32

Woodlands Conservation Law (conversion/loss of oak woodlands)- Public Resource Code 210B3.4?

e) Interfere substantially with the movement of D D D l2J 1,7, 17b, 170 any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

I) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted D D l2J D 3,4, 171 Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan?

g) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources:

i) Tree Preservation Ordinance [Section C16]? D D D l2J 1,3,31, 32 ii) Wetland Habitat [GP Policy, R-RC 25-30]? D D D l2J 3, Ba

iii) Riparian Habitat [GP Policy, R-RC 31-41]? D D D !SJ 3, Ba,

6

DISCUSSION: No site improvements are needed for this subdivision that would impact any waterways. The property and other adjacent properties surrounding it comprise primarily of grazing land. Pacheco Creek branches into several streams throughout both lots of the subdivision. There is a pond at the southern tip of the 352.97 acre lot on the side of Whiskey Flat Road and near the Merced County line. The site plan also shows a darn that runs across both lots, Harrison Road, and over the latter-mentioned pond in the 80-acre lot. The proposed access road to service both lots will not impact the ponds, dam, or Pacheco Creek. Some improvements for the access road have already been constructed.

The CA Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) maintained by CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife indicates that the Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata) and California red-legged frog (Rana draytoni) are present in the area near this pond. There is another pond in the 80 acre lot to the side of Harrison Road. CNDDB data also shows that the California red-legged frog is also present by this pond. CNDDB data also shows this as an area where San Joaquin Kit Fox is present.

The project site consists of a moderately sloped hillside and valley. The project boundary is located within a mapped oak woodland area. Land Cover includes Mixed Oalc Woodland and Forest and Valley Oak Woodland. No oak trees will be impacted by the subdivision. No residential development is proposed at this time. Future development could consist of one singlefarnily residence, and secondary dwelling per parcel (353 acres and 80 acres) on either proposed lot.

The subject property is located in the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan area. The proposed application is for a 2 lot subdivision with improvements for an access road to both parcels. However no residential development is proposed at this time. The access road improvements are subject to Habitat Plan conditions and fees

The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 9, 2012 and implementation began on October 14, 2013. The Plan is a multi-agency effort by the Cities of Morgan Hill, Gilroy, and San Jose, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Valley Transportation Agency, and the County of Santa Clara. The Habitat Plan is a regional endangered species mitigation plan that complies with State and Federal Endangered Species Act requirements. New development projects that are within the Habitat Plan study area may be subject to fees and conditions related to impacts to endangered species habitat and based on the location and size of the project.

If the property owner submits plans for future development of either property, the proposed development is also subject to the Habitat Plan fees and conditions.

IMP ACT: Less than Significant Impact

MITIGATION: NONE

7

E. CULTURAL RESOURCES

IMPACT

WOULD THE PROJECT YES NO

SOURCE Less Than

Potentially: Significant Less Than Significant With Significant t::IQ !mgact

Impact Mitigation lncorgorated

Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the D D D IZI 3, 16, 19, 40, significance of a historical resource pursuant 41 to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, or the County's Historic Preseivation Ordinance (Section 17 of County Ordinance Code)- i.e. relocation, alterations or demolition of historic resources?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the D D IZI D 3, 19,40,41, significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique D D D IZI 2,3,4,,40,41 paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those D D D IZI 2, 40,41 interred outside of formal cemeteries?

e) If within New Almaden Historic area, conflict D D D IZI Sa with General Plan policies of this designated special policy area?

DISCUSSION: The cultural resources report, "Cultural Resource Evaluation of a 690 Parcel of the Old Summit Ranch along Pacheco Pass Highway in the County of Santa Clara," prepared by Archaeological Resource Management dated October 13, 1997 found prehistoric artifacts near Pacheco Creek and on a neighboring State Park. If development or grading is scheduled in a future project as

/ part of residential construction, excavation could uncover potential archeological resources.

Because no site development is proposed as part of the subdivision near Pacheco Creek, the project would not generate any impacts to resources. The proposed access road, and existing

.. improvements constructed do not impact Pacheco Creek. As required by County Ordinance, and the cultural resource report fmdings, the following will be required for any ground disturbance in the event cultural resources may be found during site grading:

In the event that human skeletal remains are encountered, the applicant is required by County Ordinance No. B6-18 to immediately notify the County Coroner. Upon determination by the County Coroner that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission, pursuant to subdivision ( c) of section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and the County Coordinator ofindian affairs. No finiher disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs in accordance with the provisions of state law and this chapter.

If artifacts are found on the site a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted along with the County Planning Office. No further disturbance of the artifacts may be made except as authorized by the County Planning Office.

8

IMP ACT: Less than significant impact.

MITIGATION: NONE

F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS


Less Tbao SOURCE Potentially: Significant Less Than Significant Willi Significant No lmQact

Impact Mitigation Impact lncom:orated

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as D D D 1:8] 6, 17c,43 delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? D D D 1:8] 6, 17c

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including D D D 1:8] 6, 17c, 17n, liquefaction? 18b

iv) Landslides? D D D 1:8] 6, 17L,118b

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of D D D 1:8] 6, 14,23,24 topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is D D D 1:8] 2, 3, 17c, 23, unstable, or that would become unstable as a 24,42 result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the D D D 1:8] 14,23, 24, report, Soils of Santa Clara County, creating substantial risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the D D D 1:8] 3,6, 23,24, use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

f) Cause substantial compaction or over-covering of D D D 1:8] 3,6 soil either on-site or off-site?

g) Cause substantial change in topography or D D 1:8] D 2, 3, 6, 17j, 42 unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?

DISCUSSION: The project site is located in a County Landslide Hazard Zone. The main access road for the 80 acre lot of the subdivision is Harrison Road, which rnns through the lot and connects on to Old Pacheco Pass Road in the north and Whiskey Flat Road, which runs along the southeast border of both lots of the subdivision. Whiskey Flat Road is the primary access road for the 353 acre lot.

9

Future development may consist of one single-family residence and secondary dwelling per parcel (352.97 acres and 80 acres). If the property owner submit plans for future development of either prope1iy; prior to building or grading pe1mit issuance, a geotechnical investigation report should be submitted. Cleary's "Building Site Geological Feasibility Report" (dated 7-20-2012) presents the findings of a thorough reconnaissance-level geology study of Lots 1 and 2. Both lots were determined to be are suitable from a geological hazards standpoint given compliance with the geology report recommended conditions.

There is no current development proposed with this subdivision, although grading and road improvement will occur on Harrison Road; a portion of which access road improvements have been constructed.

IMP ACT: No Impact

MITIGATION: None

G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

IMPACT


SOURCE Less Than

Potential!}". Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No lm(2act

Impact Mitigation Impact lncorgorated

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either D D D 121 directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or D D D 121 regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Climate Change Discussion In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq.), which limits statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) to 1990 levels and establishes a goal of achieving these emissions reductions by 2020 (representing a 25 percent reduction in emissions). AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt a comprehensive blueprint for limiting greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2008 and complete the necessary rulemaking to implement that plan by the end of 2011.

In addition, the adoption of SB 97 in 2007 mandates that the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) prepare CEQA Guidelines which establish standards for evaluating greenhouse gas emissions including the creation feasible mitigation measures. The California Resource Agencies adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions on December 30, 2009, which became effective on March 18, 2010. The modified CEQA Guidelines require that public agencies in California evaluate greenhouse gas emissions within

10

their CEQA documents, using either qualitative or quantitative methods. Although the modified CEQA guidelines prescribe that CEQA documents must evaluate Greenhouse Gas emissions and determine if emissions will be significant, they do not establish a clear methodology or quantitative thresholds for making this determination.

In November 2009, The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) published proposed revisions to its CEQA Guidelines for addressing Air Quality impacts. These updated Guidelines included proposed quantitative thresholds for Greenhouse Gas Emissions, establishing both a "bright line" threshold of significance for GHG emissions and also an efficiency threshold. Using a methodology that models how new land use development in the San Francisco Bay area can meet AB 32 GHG reduction goals, the BAAQMD Guidelines establish a significance threshold of 1, 100 meter metric tons of C02 per year. In addition to this bright line threshold, the Guidelines include an "efficiency" threshold to be used for urban high density, transit oriented development projects that are intended to reduce vehicle trips but may still result in overall emissions greater than 1, 100 meter metric tons per year. These proposed GHG thresholds were adopted by the BAAQMD Board of Directors on June 2, 2010.

No residential development is proposed at this time. Therefore there are no potential greenhouse gas emissions impacts. Future residential development for this property would be below the screening thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions.

IMP ACT: No Impact

MITIGATION: None

G. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

IMPACT


SOURCE Less Than

Potential!~ Signifii;;;aot Less Than Significant Wi1h Significant No lmgact

Impact Mitigation Impact lncorgoi:fil§d

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the D D D IS] 1, 3, 4, 5 environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the D D D IS] 2, 3,5 environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle D D D IS] 46 hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list D D D IS] 47 of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

11

e) For a project located within an airport land use D D D 3,22a plan referral area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere D D D 5,48 with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

g) Expose people or structures to a significant D D D 4, 17g risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

h) Provide breeding grounds for vectors? D D D ~ 1, 3, 5, 31 i) Proposed site plan result in a safety hazard D D D ~ 3

(i.e., parking layout, access, closed community, etc.)?

j) Involve construction of a building, road or D D D ~ 1,3, 17n septic system on a slope of 30% or greater?

k) Involve construction of a roadway greater than D D D ~ 1,3,17n 20% slope for a distance of 300' or more?

DISCUSSION: The property is located in the Wildland Urban Interface area, and is within the California Department of Forestry Fire Response Area. Future development could consist of one singlefamily residence and secondary dwelling per parcel (352.97 acres and 80 acres), and shall conform to the State and County Fire Code standards for fire protection in Wildland Urban Interface areas. Therefore, there would not be any impacts to any hazards and hazardous materials resources.

Before approving a tentative or parcel map for land within certain defined high fire hazard zones, the local agency must find that (1) the subdivision and each lot within it are consistent with applicable state fire regulations, (2) state or local fire protection services will be available, and (3) to the extent practicable, ingress and egress meet state and local fire emergency access requirements. Govt C §664 74.02. Per the project plans, and review by County Fire Marshal's Office; the subdivision does comply with all fire marshal regulations include emergency access requirements.

IMP ACT: No Impact

MITIGATION: NONE

12

H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

IMPACT


Lessitlao SOURCE Potential!~ Significaol Less Than Significant l!l!1l!l Significant No Impact


a) Violate any water quality standards or waste D D D IS] 34,36 discharge requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or D D D IS] 3,4 interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage D D D IS] 3, 17n, pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage D D D IS] 3' 17p pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of sulface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Note policy regarding flood retention in watercourse and restoration of riparian vegetation for West Branch of the Llagas.)

e) Create or contribute increased impervious D D D IS] 1, 3, 5, 36, surfaces and associated runoff water which 21a would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

I) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D D D IS] 1, 3, 5

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard D D D IS] 3, 17p, 18b, area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard 18d Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area D D D IS] 3, 18b, 18d structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

i) Expose people or structures to a significant D D D IS] 2,3,4, 17p risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? .

j) Be located in an area of special water quality D D D IS] 4,6a, concern (e.g., Los Gatos or Guadalupe Watershed)?

k) Be located in an area known to have high levels D D D IS] 4,20b,20c of nitrates in well water?

I) Result in a septic field being constructed on D D D IS] 3 soil where a high water table extends close to the natural land surface?

m) Result in a septic field being located within 50 D D D IS] 1,3,17e

13

feet of a drainage swale; 100 feet of any well,

water course or water body or 200 feel of a reservoir at capacity?

n) Conflict with Water Collaborative Guidelines

and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams?

DISCUSSION:

D D D 22d,22e

A portion of Harrison Road will be widened for two-way traffic on Parcel 2 of the proposed subdivision; a portion of which has already been constructed. The road improvements would not impact any waterways. The project is required to comply with County Drainage Ordinance requirements. Therefore, there would not be any impacts to any hydrology and water quality.

IMPACT: No Impact

MITIGATION: None

I. LAND USE

IMPACT


Less Than SOURCE Potentiall~ Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No rm12act

Impact MiUqation Impact lncoq;!orated

a) Physically divide an established community? D D D I:?.<:] 2,4

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, D D D I:?.<:] Ba,9, 18a policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with special policies:

i) San Martin &/or South County? D D D I:?.<:] 1, 3,Sa,20 ii) Los Gatos Specific Plan or Lexington D D D I:?.<:] 1, 3, Sa, 22b,

Watershed? 22c iii) Guadalupe Watershed? D D D I:?.<:] 1,8a iv) Stanford? D D D I:?.<:] Sa,21 v) City of Morgan Hill Urban Growth D D D I:?.<:] Ba, 17a

Boundary Area? vi) West Valley Hillsides Preservation Area? D D D I:?.<:] 1,8a vii) Water Collaborative (Guidelines and

Standards for Land Use Near Streams) D D D I:?.<:] 22d,22e

DISCUSSION: The property is zoned AR (Agriculture Ranchlands)/AR-sr, and the County's General Plan designates the land use for this property as Ranchlands. The density is set forth by Zoning Ordinance Table 2.20-3 (Rural Base Districts Property Development Standards), which is a minimum of 160 acres per unit or may be reduced with application of the slope density formula for property with an average slope 10-50% pmsuant to Table 2.20-4. The slope density requirements calculations for this site were completed by a registered Professional Engineer, Civil Engineer and concluded a minimum density for subdivision is 1 per 56.318 acres.

14

The proposed 2-lot subdivision is Parcel I at 352.97 acres and Parcel 2 at 80 acres. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 2.20.060.c, lots may be smaller in size than the slope density formula provided the subdivision does not exceed the maximum number oflots that would be permitted. In this case, up to four lots would be permitted. Future development could consist of one singlefamily residence and secondary dwelling per parcel (195 acres and 50 acres), which is consistent with the General Plan policies. The two lots are not located in an area that conflicts with special policies.

IMP ACT: No Impact

MITIGATION: None

J. NOISE

IMPACTS WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO

Less Than SOURCE Potential!~ Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact

Impact Mitigation lncoq;!orated

Impact

a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation D D D IZI Ba, 13, 22a, of noise levels in excess of standards 45 established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation D D D IZI 13,45 of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in D D D IZI 1,2,5,45 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic D D IZI D 1, 2, 5, 45 increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e) For a project located within an airport land use D D D IZI 1, 5, 22a plan referral area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or private airstrip would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

DISCUSSION: Minor road improvement and grading will occur on Harrison Road; a portion of which has been already been constrncted. The noise level will be considered less than significant. Therefore, there would not be any impacts to any noise. Future development could consist of one singlefamily residence and secondary dwelling per parcel (352.97 acres and 80 acres).

The noise levels created during the construction of the road improvements could create a temporary disturbance to neighboring properties. The project shall conform to the County Noise

15

Ordinance. The County Noise Ordinance (Section B 11-152) sets maximum exterior noise levels for land use categories, and compliance with these specifications will ensure that the neighboring properties are not significantly impacted. Operation of the project would not create any significant noise impacts. No residential development is proposed at this time.

IMP ACT: Less than Significant Impact

MITIGATION: None

K. POPULATION AND HOUSING


Less Than SOURCE Potential!~ Significant Less Than Significant \Mth Significant ~Q [mgact

Impact Mitigation Impact lncorgorated

a) Induce substantial growth in an area, either D D D lXI 1, 3, 4 directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing D D D IS] 1, 2, 3, 4 housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

DISCUSSION: The project is a two-lot subdivision with access road improvements; a portion of which has already been constructed. Although there is no residential development or grading associated with the project, it is anticipated that the project site could be developed with a single-family residence and secondary dwelling on each lot in the future. There are no significant impacts related to population and housing.

IMPACT: No Impact

MITIGATION: None

16

L. PUBUC SERVICES

IMPACT


less Tban Potentiall~ Significaot Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact

Impact Mill9..fili.Qn Impact lncomorated

a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

i) Fire Protection? D D D [SJ 1, 3, 5

ii) Police Protection? D D D [SJ 1, 3, 5

iii) School facilities? D D D [SJ 1, 3, 5

iv) Parks? D D D [SJ 1, 3, 5, 17h

v) Other public facilities? D D D [SJ 1, 3, 5

DISCUSSION: The project is a two-lot subdivision with access road improvements; a portion of which has already been constructed. Although there is no development or grading associated with the project, it is anticipated that the project site could be developed with a single family residence and secondary dwelling on each lot in the future. No impacts to schools, parks, police and fire protection are anticipated. There are no impacts at this time.

IMP ACT: No Impact

MITIGATION: None

M. RESOURCES AND RECREATION

IMPACT


Less Tbao SOURCE Potential!~ Significant Less Than Significant ~ Significant No lmQact

Impact Mitigation Impact lncomo[ajed

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known D D D [SJ 1,2, 3,6,44 mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- D D D [SJ 1, 2, 3, 6,8a important mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

c) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and D D D [SJ 1, 2, 4, 5, 17h reQional parks or other recreational facilities

17

such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

d) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

e) Be on, within or near a public or private park, wildlife reseive, or trail or affect existing or future recreational opportunities?

f) Result in loss of open space rated as high priority for acquisition in the "Preseivation 20120" report?

DISCUSSION:

D

D

D

D D 1, 3, 4, 5

D D 17h, 21a

D D 27

The project is a two-lot subdivision with access road improvements; a portion of which has already been construction. Future development could consist of one single-family residence and secondary dwelling per parcel (352.97 acres and 80 acres). Whiskey Flat Road shares a border with Pacheco State Park, but no significant impact is anticipated toward it as road improvement will occur only on Harrison Road. Therefore, there would not be any impacts to resources or recreational facilities.

IMPACT: No Impact

MITIGATION: None

N. TRANSPORTATION I TRAFFIC

IMPACT SOURCE


Less Than Potential!~ Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No 1m12act


a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or D D ~ D 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, policy establishing measures of effectiveness 49,52 for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion D D D ~ 6,49,50,52 management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, D D D ~ 5,6, 7,52 including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design D D D ~ 3, 5, 6,7, 52 feature (e.g., sharp cuives or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm

18

equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

I) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otheiwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

g) Not provide safe access, obstruct access to nearby uses or fail to provide for future street right of way?

DISCUSSION:

D D

D

D D

D

D D

D

1,3,5,48,52

8a,21a

3,6, 7,52

The project is not located near any county-maintained roadway. This parcel is mainly accessed via Whiskey Flat Road and Harrison Road, the latter of which runs through Parcel 2 of the proposed subdivision and will require minor road improvement; a portion of which has been constrncted. Transportation may increase from that generated by one (1) parcel to two (2) parcels normally associated with Agriculture Ranchland. As such, the project will not generate substantial new traffic or impair existing transportation facilities. Therefore, there is no new impact to transportation or traffic.

Future development could consist of one single-family residence and secondary dwelling per parcel (352.97 acres and 80 acres). Residential construction could create a temporary increase in traffic during construction but it would be minor in nature and the roads affected have relatively low traffic volumes. Project related traffic would not increase traffic on the local roads to a level that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Therefore, congestion caused by construction vehicles accessing the work areas from local roads would be minimal and limited to the short-term duration of the project.

IMP ACT: Less Than Significant Impact

MITIGATION: None

0. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

IMPACT


Less Tbao SOURCE Potential!~ Signifigaot Less Than Significant With Significant No lmgact

Impact Mitigation Impact lncoq;!ocatf:ld

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of D u D [gJ 1, 3, 5, the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction of new D D D [gJ 1, 3, 5, 21a, water or wastewater treatment facilities or 38 expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new D D D [gJ 1, 3, 5 storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d) Require new or expanded entitlements in D D [gJ D 1, 3, 5, 21,

19

order to have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project?

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater D D D 1, 3, 5 treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?

I) Not be able to be served by a landfill with D D D IS] 1, 3, 5 sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?

g) Be in non-compliance with federal, state, and D D D IS] 5,6 local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

DISCUSSION: The project is a two-lot subdivision with access road improvements; a portion of which has already been constructed. Although there is no development or grading associated with the project, it is anticipated that the project site could be developed with a single family residence and secondary dwelling on each lot in the future. If so, each site would maintain its own septic system and potable well water system. Therefore, the impacts to utilities and service systems at this time are none.

IMPACT: No Impact

MITIGATION: None

20

P. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE

IMPACT


Less Ibao SOURCE Potentiall~ Significaot Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact

Impact MillggtiQn Impact lncomorated

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade D D D ~ 1to52 the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant' or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are D D D ~ 1to52 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects D D D ~ 1to52 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

DISCUSSION: The project will not trigger any mandatory findings of significance. The project includes a 2-lot subdivision on a 432.97 acre parcel that will result in a 352.97 acre lot and an 80 acre lot. Harrison Road will undergo road widening and grading and other road improvement as a condition for the subdivision. Species present within the property include California red-legged frog, Western pond turtle and San Joaquin Kit Fox. Land cover includes Mixed Oak and Valley Oak Woodland.

Future development will not have the potential to degrade the environment, reduce the habitat of any animal or plant species, or affect any cultural resources. Development will not cause any cumulative impacts, and will have no substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

On the basis of this Initial Study, a Negative Declaration shall be prepared for the project.

21

Initial Study Source List*

1. Environmental Infonnation Form 2. Field Inspection 3. Project Plans 4. Working knowledge of site and conditions 5. Experience With Other Projects of This Size and Nature 6. County Expert Sources: Geologist, Fire Marshal, Roads & Airports, Environmental Health, Land Development

Engineering, Parks & Recreation, Zoning Administration, Comprehensive Planning, Architectural & Site Approval Committee Secretary

7. Agency Sources: Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Mid peninsula Openspace Regional District, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, CA Dept. of Fish & Game, Caltrans, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Public Works Depts. of individual cities, Planning Depts. of individual cities,

8a. Santa Clara County (SCC) General Plan Sb. The South County Joint Area Plan 9. SCC Zoning Regulations (Ordinance) 10. County Grading Ordinance 11. SCC Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval 12. SCC Development Guidelines for Design Review 13. County Standards and Policies Manual (Vol. I - Land Development) 14. Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (expansive soil regulations) [1994 version] 15. Land Use Database 16. Santa Clara County Heritage Resource (including Trees) Inventory [computer database] 17. GIS Database

a. SCC General Plan Land Use, and Zoning b. USFWS Critical Habitat & Riparian Habitat c. Geologic Hazards d. Archaeological Resources e. Water Resources f. Viewshed and Scenic Roads g. Fire Hazard h. Parks, Public Open Space, and Trails i. Heritage Resources ~ Trees j. Topography, Contours, Average Slope k. Soils I. HCP Data (habitat models, land use coverage etc) m. Air photos n. USGS Topographic o. Dept. of Fish & Game, Natural Diversity Data p. FEMA Flood Zones q. Williamson Act r. Farmland monitoring program s. Traffic Analysis Zones Base Map Overlays & Textual Reports (GIS)

18. Paper Maps a. SCC Zoning b. Barclay's Santa Clara County Locaide Street Atlas c. Color Air Photos (MPSI) d. Santa Clara Valley Water District - Maps of Flood Control Facilities & Limits of 1% Flooding e. Soils Overlay Air Photos f. "Future Width Line" map set

19. CEQA Guidelines [Current Edition]

Area Specific: San Martin. Stanford, and Other Areas

20a.San Martin Integrated Design Guidelines 20b.San Martin Water Quality Study

San Martin

20c.Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Santa Clara County & Santa Clara Valley Water District


Stanford 21a. Stanford University General Use Permit (GUP), Community Plan (CP), Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 21 b. Stanford Protocol and Land Use Policy Agreement

other Areas 22a.South County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Palo Alto Airport comprehensive Land Use Plan

[November 19, 2008] 22b.Los Gatos Hillsides Specific Area Plan 22c. County Lexington Basin Ordinance Relating to Sewage Disposal 22d. User Manual Guidelines & Standards for Land Uses Near Streams: A Manual of Tools, Standards and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resources in Santa Clara County by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative, August 2005 - Revised July 2006. 22e. Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams: Streamside Review Area - Summary prepared by Santa Clara County Planning Office, September 2007. 22f. Monterey Highway Use Permit Area

23.USDA, SCS, "Soils of Santa Clara County 24.USDA, SGS, "Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara County"

Agricultural Resources/Open Space 25. Right to Farm Ordinance 26. State Dept. of Conservation, "CA Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model" 27. Open Space Preservation, Report of the Preservation 2020 Task Force, April 1987 [Chapter IV] 28. Williamson Act Ordinance and Guidelines (current version)

Air Quality 29. BAAQMD Clean Air Plan, and BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2010) 30. BAAQMD Annual Summary of Contaminant Excesses & BAAQMD, "Air Quality & Urban Development - Guidelines for

Assessing Impacts of Projects & Plans" [current version]

31. Site-Specific Biological Report

Biological Resources/ Water Quality & Hydrological Resources/

Utilities & Service Systems"

32. Santa Clara County Tree Preservation Ordinance Section C16, Santa Clara County Guide to Evaluating Oak Woodlands Impacts, Santa Clara County Guidelines for Tree Protection and Preservation for Land Use Applications

33. Clean Water Act, Section 404 34. Riparian Inventory of Santa Clara County, Greenbelt Coalition, November 1988 35.CA Regional Water Quality Control Board, Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Region [1995] 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District, Private Well Water Testing Program [12-98] 37. SCC Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, Urban Runoff Management Plan [1997] 38.County Environmental Health I Septic Tank Sewage Disposal System - Bulletin "A"

39.County Environmental Health Department Tests and Reports

Archaeological Resources 40.Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University 41. Site Specific Archaeological Reconnaissance Report

Geological Resources 42. Site Specific Geologic Report 43.State Department of Mines and Geology, Special Report #42 44. State Department of Mines and Geology, Special Report #146

45. County Noise Ordinance

Hazards & Hazardous Materials 46.Section 21151.4 of California Public Resources Code 47. State Department of Toxic Substances, Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List 48. County Office of Emergency Services Emergency Response Plan [1994 version]


T ra nsportationrr raffle 49. Transportation Research Board, "Highway

Capacity Manual", Special Report 209, 1995. 50. SCC Congestion Management Agency, "Monitoring and Conformance report" (Current Edition) 51. Official County Road Book 52. Site-specific Traffic Impact Analysis Report

*Items listed in bold are the most important sources and should be referred to during the first review of the project, when they are available. The planner should refer to the other sources for a particular environmental factor if the former indicate a potential environmental impact.

Vicinity Map File No. 10214-128

MERCED COUNTY

,__','_'_'_·",'-'-~_'_,·ooo Feot @ lrl<ffl'O<~•olb''"'''"•~•~c,.,~ "'~"""""-'"'°''"'b•z ~m,no! t= "''"''"'"' Wl<d~ffl"""'~'''"'""'""!l01i«,,~m~ M "'""' "''"" ""'""" Y.00""'"""''"'""~"-~'"~-m>pn••

,,

initial studyaddress hollister, ca 95023 zoning: agriculture ranchlands (ar), ... grazing land and...

Documents